[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11411-11416]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5991]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-580-812]
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors of one Megabit or
Above From the Republic of Korea; Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent not to Revoke Order
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of preliminary result of antidumping duty administrative
review and notice of intent not to revoke order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests from two respondents and one U.S.
producer, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on dynamic random access memory
semiconductors of one megabit or above from the Republic of Korea. The
review covers two manufacturers/exporters of the subject merchandise to
the United States and four ``third-country'' resellers from Singapore,
Malaysia, Canada, and Hong Kong for the period of May 1, 1996 through
April 30, 1997. As a result of the review, the Department of Commerce
has preliminarily determined that dumping margins exist for both
manufacturers/exporters and two of the third-country resellers. With
respect to the third-county resellers, one did not respond, two stated
that they made no sales of the subject merchandise to the U.S. during
the period of review, and one reseller did not fully respond. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative
review, we will instruct the Customs Service to assess antidumping
duties as appropriate. Interested parties are invited to comment on
these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this
proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of
the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Futtner, AD/CVD Enforcement
Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3814.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise stated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective
January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act
by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless
otherwise indicated, all references to the regulations of the
Department of Commerce (the Department) are to 19 CFR part 353 (1997).
Background
On May 10, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 27250) the antidumping duty order on DRAMs from the Republic of
Korea. On May 2, 1997, the Department published a notice of
``Opportunity to Request an Administrative Review'' of this antidumping
duty order for the period of May 1, 1996, through April 30, 1997 (62 FR
24081). We received timely requests for review from two manufacturers/
exporters of subject merchandise to the United States; Hyundai
Electronics Industries, Co. (Hyundai), and LG Semicon Co., Ltd (L.G.
formerly Goldstar Electronics Co., Ltd.). The petitioner, Micron
Technologies Inc., requested an administrative review of these same two
Korean manufacturers of DRAMs as well as four third-country resellers
of DRAMS. The third-country resellers are Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong)
(Techgrow), Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore), NIE Electronics
Sdn. Bhd. (Malaysia, and Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada)
(Vietel). On June 19, 1997, the Department initiated a review of the
above-mentioned Korean manufacturers and third-country resellers (62 FR
33394). The period of review (POR) of all respondents is May
[[Page 11412]]
1, 1996, through April 30, 1997. The Department is conducting this
review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
In addition, on June 25, 1997, we initiated an investigation to
determine if Hyundai and LG made sales of subject merchandise below the
cost of production (COP) during the POR based upon the fact that we had
disregarded sales found to have been made below the COP in the original
less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, which was the most recent
period for which final a final determination was available when this
review was initiated. On January 12, 1998, the Department published in
the Federal Register (63 FR 1824) a notice extending the time for the
preliminary results from January 30, 1998, until March 2, 1998.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by the review are shipments of Dynamic Random
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of one megabit or above from the
Republic of Korea (Korea). Included in the scope are assembled and
unassembled DRAMS of one megabit and above. Assembled DRAMS include all
package types. Unassembled DRAMS include processed wafers, uncut die,
and cut die. Processed wafers produced in Korea, but packaged or
assembled into memory modules in a third country, are included in the
scope; wafers produced in a third country and assembled or packaged in
Korea, are not included in the scope.
The scope of this review includes memory modules. A memory module
is a collection of DRAMS, the sole function of which is memory. Modules
include single in-line processing modules (SIPs), single in-line memory
modules (SIMMs), or other collections of DRAMS, whether unmounted or
mounted on a circuit board. Modules that contain other parts that are
needed to support the function of memory are covered. Only those
modules which contain additional items which alter the function of the
module to something other than memory, such as video graphics adapter
(VGA) boards and cards, are not included in the scope. The scope of
this review also includes video random access memory semiconductors
(VRAMS), as well as any future packaging and assembling of DRAMS. The
scope of this review also includes removable memory modules placed on
motherboards, with or without a central processing unit (CPU), unless
the importer of motherboards certifies with the Customs Service that
neither it, nor a party related to it or under contract to it, will
remove the modules from the motherboards after importation. The scope
of this review does not include DRAMS or memory modules that are
reimported for repair or replacement.
The DRAMS subject to this review are currently classifiable under
subheadings 8542.11.0001, 8542.11.0024, 8542.11.0026, and 8542.11.0034
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Also
included in the scope are those removable Korean DRAMS contained on or
within products classifiable under subheadings 8471.91.0000 and
8473.30.4000 of the HTSUS. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the
scope of this review remains dispositive.
Intent Not To Revoke
Both Hyundai and LG submitted requests to revoke the order covering
DRAMS from Korea pursuant to 19 CFR 353.25(b). Under the Department's
regulations, the Department may revoke an order, in part, if the
Secretary concludes that, among other things: (1) ``[o]ne or more
producers or resellers covered by the order have sold the merchandise
at not less than [normal] value for a period of at least three
consecutive years''; (2) ``[i]t is not likely that those persons will
in the future sell the merchandise at less than normal value * * *'';
and (3) ``the producers or resellers agree in writing to the immediate
reinstatement of the order, as long as any producer or reseller is
subject to the order, if the Secretary concludes * * * that the
producer or reseller, subsequent to the revocation, sold the
merchandise at less than [normal] value.'' See 19 CFR 353.25(a)(2). In
this case, neither respondent meets the first criterion for revocation.
The Department has preliminarily found that the two respondents, LG and
Hyundai, sold subject merchandise at not less than normal value in the
two prior reviews under this order, but did sell at less than normal
value during the instant review. Since neither respondent has met the
first criterion for revocation, i.e., or de minimis margins for three
consecutive reviews, the Department need not reach a conclusion with
respect to the ``not likely'' standard. Therefore, on this basis, we
have preliminarily determined not to revoke the Korean DRAM antidumping
duty order.
Facts Available
LG
Based on information obtained from the Customs Service, we have
preliminarily determined that a number of sales LG had reported as
being to a third country were actually sales to the United States. See
Memorandum from Team to Thomas Futtner, February 25, 1998. The
Department has preliminarily determined that in accordance with section
776(a) of the Act, the margin for LG should be based on facts available
as it failed to report those U.S. sales. As facts available, the
Department has calculated a dumping margin based on both the reported
and the unreported sales to the United States which we were able to
identify based on Customs Service data.
For LG's unreported sales, we used product-specific weighted
average U.S. selling expenses based on reported expenses for identical
products. Where there were no identical matches, we used weighted
average selling expenses based on reported selling expenses.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the application of
facts available to LG due to unreported sales within 14 calendar days
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal comments may be submitted from
the 15th calendar day through and including the 21st calendar day.
Comments submitted during this period may address the application of
facts available due to LG's unreported sales only. Time limits for case
briefs and rebuttal briefs, and the contents thereof, are not affected
by the stipulations noted above. Requirements for the submission of
case briefs and rebuttal briefs are described elsewhere in this notice.
Techgrow
On October 16, 1997, the Department notified Techgrow that under
the Department's regulations Techgrow was affiliated with Tech Perfect
Inc. and requested that Techgrow submit a response for sections B
through E which included information covering Techgrow, Tech Perfect,
and any other affiliated parties which sold subject merchandise during
the POR. The Department reiterated this request on November 17, 1997.
Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B, and C only, and did not
include the information requested for its affiliates. On November 26,
1997 and December 3, 1997, Tech Perfect, Inc. and Techgrow
respectively, notified the Department that they would not participate
in the instant review. Tech Perfect Inc. and Techgrow formally filed
notices of withdrawal with the Department on December 16, 1997. Failure
to submit the requested information, and withdrawal from this
proceeding, has significantly impeded our review with respect to
Techgrow. Thus in
[[Page 11413]]
accordance with section 776(a) of the Act, we must rely on facts
available for sales to Techgrow and its affiliates.
Vitel
On August 12, 1997, Vitel confirmed it had received the
questionnaire, but subsequently failed to submit a response. Since
Vitel failed to submit a questionnaire response in accordance with
section 776(a) of the Act, we are relying on facts available to
establish an antidumping margin for Vitel.
Corroboration of Facts Available
As discussed above, Techgrow submitted responses to sections A, B,
and C only, and did not include the information requested for its
affiliates. Vitel confirmed it had received the questionnaire, but
subsequently failed to submit a response. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act
provides that if any interested party: (1) withholds information that
has been requested by the Department; (2) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested; (3)
significantly impedes an antidumping investigation; or (4) provides
such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department
is required to use facts otherwise available (subject to subsections
782(c)(1) and (e)) to make its determination. Because Techgrow failed
to respond in full to the Department's questionnaire, and Vitel did not
respond at all, we must use facts otherwise available to calculate
their dumping margin.
Section 776(b) provides that adverse inferences may be used against
a party that failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its
ability to comply with requests for information. See also the Statement
of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d
Cong., 2d Sess. 870 (1994) (``SAA''). Techgrow's decision to respond
only in part, and failure to provide affiliate information,
demonstrates that Techgrow has failed to cooperate to the best of its
ability in this review. Vitel failed to cooperate since it provided no
questionnaire response at all. Therefore, the Department has determined
that, in selecting among the facts otherwise available for Techgrow and
Vitel, an adverse inference is warranted.
Section 776(b) states that an adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from the petition or any other
information placed on the record. See also SAA at 829-831. Section
776(c) of the Act provides that, when the Department relies on
secondary information (such as the petition) in using the facts
otherwise available, it must, to the extent practicable, corroborate
that information from independent sources that are reasonably at its
disposal.
As adverse facts available, we are assigning to Techgrow and Vitel,
individually, the highest margin calculated in these preliminary
results, that rate calculated for Hyundai, 12.64 percent. The
Department considers this rate corroborated and having probative value
since it was calculated based on information collected and verified
specifically for purpose of calculating a margin for a respondent in
the instant review.
No Shipments
Singapore Resources Pte. Ltd. (Singapore) and NIE Electronics Sdn.
Bhd. (Malaysia) reported that they made no U.S. sales of subject
merchandise during the POR. Therefore, unless and until these companies
sell subject merchandise to the U.S. and participate in an
administrative review, any future shipments by these companies of
subject merchandise to the U.S. will be subject to the all others rate
established in the LTFV investigation.
Constructed Export Price
For LG and Hyundai, in calculating price to the United States, the
Department used constructed export price (CEP), as defined in section
772(b) of the Act, because the merchandise was first sold to an
unaffiliated U.S. purchaser after importation.
We calculated CEP based on packed, factory prices to unaffiliated
customers in the United States. We made deductions from the starting
price, where appropriate, for discounts, rebates, foreign brokerage and
handling, foreign inland insurance, air freight, air insurance, U.S.
duties and direct and indirect selling expenses to the extent that they
are associated with economic activity in the United States (these
included credit expenses, warranty expenses, royalty payments,
commissions as applicable, advertising and promotion expenses paid by
the respondent, and inventory carrying costs incurred by the
respondents U.S. subsidiaries) in accordance with sections 772(c)(2)
and 772(d)(1) of the Act. We added duty drawback paid on imported
materials in the home market, where applicable, pursuant to section
772(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
For DRAMS that were further manufactured into memory modules after
importation, we deducted all costs of further manufacturing in the
United States, pursuant to section 772(b)(2) of the Act. These costs
consisted of the costs of the materials, fabrication, and general
expenses associated with the further manufacturing in the United
States.
Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we also reduced the CEP
United States price by the amount of profit allocated to the expenses
deducted under section 772(d)(1) and (2).
No other adjustments were claimed or allowed.
Normal Value
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of
sales of DRAMS in the home market to serve as a viable basis for
calculating normal value, we compared the respondents' volume of home
market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of
the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the
Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign
like products for both Hyundai and LG was greater than five percent of
the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales of the subject
merchandise, we determined that the home market provides a viable basis
for calculating NV for all respondents.
We disregarded Hyundai's and LG's sales found to have been made
below the COP during the LTFV investigation, the most recent period for
which final results were available at the time of the initiation of
this review. Accordingly, the Department, pursuant to section 773(b) of
the Act, initiated COP investigations of both respondents for purposes
of this administrative review.
We calculated COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and
fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus
selling, general, and administrative expenses (SG&A), and the cost of
all expenses incidental to placing the foreign like product in
condition packed ready for shipment, in accordance with section
773(b)(3) of the Act. We relied on the home market sales and COP
information provided by the respondents in the questionnaire responses.
In accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act, in order to determine
whether to disregard home market sales made at price below the COP, we
examined whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were
made in substantial quantities, and whether such sales were made at
prices which permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable
period of time.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, where less than 20
percent of home market sales of a given model were at prices less than
the COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model
because the below-cost sales were not made in ``substantial
[[Page 11414]]
quantities''. Where 20 percent or more of home market sales of a given
model were at prices less than the COP, we disregarded the below-cost
sales because we determined that the below-cost sales were made in
``substantial quantities'' and at prices that would not permit recovery
of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with
section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
On January 8, 1998, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
issued a decision in CEMEX v. United States, 1998 WL 3626 (Fed Cir.).
In that case, based on the pre-URAA version of the Act, the Court
discussed the appropriateness of using constructed value (CV) as the
basis for foreign market when the Department finds home market sales to
be outside the ``ordinary course of trade.'' This issue was not raised
by any party in this proceeding. However, the URAA amended the
definition of sales outside the ``ordinary course of trade'' to include
sales below cost. See Section 771(15) of the Act. Consequently, the
Department has determined that it would be inappropriate to resort
directly to CV, in lieu of foreign market sales, as the basis for NV if
the Department finds foreign market sales of merchandise identical or
most similar to that sold in the United States to be outside the
``ordinary course of trade.'' Instead, the Department will use sales of
similar merchandise, if such sales exist. The Department will use CV as
the basis for NV only when there are no above-cost sales that are
otherwise suitable for comparison. Therefore, in this proceeding, when
making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we
considered all products sold in the home market as described in the
``Scope of Review'' section of this notice, above, that were in the
ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate
product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales in the
ordinary course of trade of the identical or the most similar
merchandise in the home market that were otherwise suitable for
comparison, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the next most similar
foreign like product, based on the characteristics listed in Section B
and C of our antidumping questionnaire. We have implemented the Court's
decision in this case, to the extent that the data on the record
permitted.
In accordance with section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated CV
based on the respondents' cost of materials and fabrication employed in
producing the subject merchandise, SG&A and profit incurred and
realized in connection with the production and sale of the foreign like
product, and U.S. packing costs. We used the cost of materials,
fabrication, and G&A as reported in the CV portion of the questionnaire
response. We used the U.S. packing costs as reported in the U.S. sales
portion of the respondents' questionnaire responses. For selling
expenses, we used the average of the selling expenses reported for home
market sales that survived the cost test, weighted by the total
quantity of those sales. For actual profit, we first calculated the
difference between the home market sales value and home market COP, and
divided the difference by the home market COP. We then multiplied this
percentage by the COP for each U.S. model to derive an actual profit.
For both respondents, the Department relied on the submitted COP
and CV information, adjusted as necessary. As discussed below, we
adjusted the respondents' reported COP and CV with respect to the
following: (1) research and development (R&D), (2) depreciation, and
(3) foreign exchange losses.
R&D
The Department recalculated the respondents' reported R&D expense
based on the ratio of each company's total semiconductor expenses to
the total semiconductor cost of goods sold. Due to the forward-looking
nature of the R&D activities, the Department, in this review, cannot
identify every instance where DRAM R&D may influence logic products or
where logic R&D may influence DRAM products, but the Department's own
semiconductor expert has identified areas where R&D from one type of
semiconductor product has influenced another semiconductor product in
the past. Dr. Murzy Jhabvala, a semiconductor device engineer at NASA
with twenty-four years experience, was asked by the Department to state
his views regarding cross-fertilization of R&D efforts in the
semiconductor industry. In a July 14, 1995 Memorandum to Holly Kuga,
``Cross Fertilization of Research and Development Efforts in the
Semiconductor Industry,'' Dr. Jhabvala stated that ``it is reasonable
and realistic to contend that R&D from one area (e.g., bipolar) applies
and benefits R&D efforts in another area (e.g., MOS memory).'' It is
the Department's practice where costs benefit more than one product to
allocate those costs to all the products which they benefit. This
practice is consistent with section 773(f)(1)(A) of the Act because we
have determined that the product-specific R&D accounts do not
reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of
DRAMS. Therefore, as semiconductor R&D benefits all semiconductor
products, we allocated semiconductor R&D to all semiconductor products.
Depreciation
In contrast to the previous year, both respondents, for this POR,
elected not to take special depreciation. This represents a failure to
report depreciation expenses in a systematic and rational manner. As a
result, disproportionately greater costs were attributed to products
manufactured during the period for which the special depreciation was
taken than for the subsequent period when it was not taken. Therefore,
for these preliminary results, we are making an adjustment to the
respondents' reported depreciation. We are adding special depreciation
to the reported cost of production.
Foreign Exchange Losses
We have included the amortized portion of foreign exchange losses
on long-term debt in the cost of production as part of interest
expense. The translation gains and losses at issue are related to the
cost of acquiring and maintaining debt. These costs are related to
production and are properly included in the calculation of financing
expense as a part of COP. In previous cases, we have found that
translation losses represent an increase in the actual amount of cash
needed by the respondents to retire their foreign currency denominated
loan balances. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than
Fair Value: Fresh Cut Roses from Ecuador, 24 FR 7019, 7039, (Feb. 6,
1995). Also, see Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors From the
Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937, (Feb. 23, 1998). Furthermore, the
Department has amortized these expenses over the remaining life of the
companies' loans in the past. See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars
From Turkey, 62 FR 9737, 9743, (Mar. 4, 1997). Also, see Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random
Access Memory Semiconductors From the Republic of Korea, 63 FR 8937,
(Feb. 23, 1998). We have verified deferred foreign exchange translation
gains and losses for both respondents. To reasonably reflect the cost
of producing and selling the subject merchandise, it is necessary that
the respondents' costs reflect the additional financial burden
represented by the cash needed to retire foreign currency denominated
loans.
[[Page 11415]]
Therefore, we are amortizing deferred foreign exchange translation
gains and losses over the average remaining life of the loans on a
straight-line basis and are including the amortized portion in net
interest expense.
For price-to-price comparisons, we based NV on the price at which
the foreign like product is first sold for consumption in the exporting
country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course
of trade, and to the extent practicable, at the same level of trade, in
accordance with section 773(a)(1(B)(i) of the Act. We compared the U.S.
prices of individual transactions to the monthly weighted-average price
of sales of the foreign like product. We calculated NV based on
delivered prices to unaffiliated customers and, where appropriate, to
affiliated customers in the home market.
In calculating NV for both CV and home market prices, we made
adjustments, where appropriate, for inland freight, inland insurance,
discounts, rebates, and Korean brokerage and handling charges. We also
reduced NV by packing costs incurred in the home market, in accordance
with section 773(a)(6)(B)(i) of the Act. In addition, we increased NV
for U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) of the
Act. We also made further adjustments, when applicable, to account for
differences in physical characteristics of the merchandise in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(c)(ii) of the Act. Finally, in
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act, we made an
adjustment for differences in the circumstances of sale by deducting
home market direct selling expenses (credit expenses, advertising
expenses, royalty expenses, and bank charges) and adding any direct
selling expenses associated with U.S. sales not deducted under the
provisions of section 772(d)(1) of the Act.
Level of Trade and CEP Offset
In accordance with section 773(a)(1(B) of the Act, to the extent
practical, we determined NV based on sales in the comparison market at
the same level of trade as the EP or CEP sales. The NV level of trade
is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market or, when
NV is based on constructed value (``CV''), that of the sales from which
we derive selling, general and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses and
profit. For EP, it is also the level of the starting-price sale, which
is usually from exporter to importer. For CEP, it is the level of the
constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade
than EP or CEP sales, we examined stages in the marketing process and
selling activities along the chain of distribution between the producer
and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a
different level of trade, and the difference affects price
comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price
differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-
market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a
level of trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act.
Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory
than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the
difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price
comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the
CEP offset provision). See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from
South Africa, 62 FR 61731 (November 19, 1997).
We reviewed the questionnaire responses of both respondents to
establish whether there were sales at different levels of trade based
on the distribution system, selling activities, and services offered to
each customer or customer category.
For both respondents, we identified one level of trade in the home
market with direct sales by the parent corporation to the domestic
customer. These direct sales were made by both respondents to original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and to distributors. In addition, all
sales, whether made to OEM customers or to distributors, included the
same selling functions. For the U.S. market, all sales for both
respondents were reported as CEP sales. The level of trade of the U.S.
sales is determined for the sale to the affiliated importer rather than
the resale to the unaffiliated customer. We examined the selling
functions performed by the Korean companies for U.S. CEP sales (as
adjusted) and preliminarily determine that they are at a different
level of trade from the Korean companies' home market sales because the
companies' CEP transactions were at a less advanced stage of marketing.
For instance, at the CEP level the Korean companies did not engage in
any general promotion, marketing activities, or price negotiations for
U.S. sales.
Because we compared CEP sales to home market sales at a more
advanced level of trade, we examined whether a level of trade
adjustment may be appropriate. In this case, both respondents only sold
at one level of trade in the home market; therefore, there is no basis
upon which either respondent can demonstrate a pattern of consistent
price differences between levels of trade. Further, we do not have
information which would allow us to examine pricing patterns based on
the respondents' sales of other products and there is not other record
information on which such an analysis could be based. Because the data
available do not provide an appropriate basis for making a level of
trade adjustment and the level of trade in the home market is at a more
advanced stage of distribution than the level of trade of the CEP
sales, a CEP offset is appropriate. Both respondents claimed a CEP
offset. We applied the CEP offset to adjusted home market prices or
constructed value, as appropriate. The CEP offset consisted of an
amount equal to the lesser of the weighted-average U.S. indirect
selling expenses and U.S. commissions or homemarket indirect selling
expenses. No other adjustments were claimed or allowed. The level of
trade methodology employed by the Department in these preliminary
results of review is based on the facts particular to this review. The
Department will continue to examine its policy for making level of
trade comparisons and adjustments for its final results of review.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the
following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hyundai Electronic Industries, Inc............................ 12.64
LG Semicon Co., Ltd........................................... 7.61
Techgrow Limited (Hong Kong).................................. 12.64
Vitel Electronics Ottawa Office (Canada)...................... 12.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual differences
between United States price and NV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
Customs. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the
assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by
the determination and for future deposits of estimated duties. The
Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess,
antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We have calculated
importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio
of the total amount of dumping margins calculated for the examined
sales made during
[[Page 11416]]
POR to the total customs value of the sales used to calculate those
duties. These rates will be assessed uniformly on all entries of each
particular importer made during the POR. (This is equivalent to
dividing the total amount of antidumping duties, which are calculated
by taking the difference between statutory NV and statutory EP and CEP,
by the total statutory EP or CEP value of the sales compared, and
adjusting the result by the average difference between EP or CEP and
customs value for all merchandise examined during the POR).
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
upon completion of the final results of these administrative reviews
for all shipments of DRAMS from Korea entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final
results of these administrative reviews, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rates for Hyundai, LG,
Techgrow and Vitel will be the rates indicated above; (2) for
merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this
review but covered in the original LTFV investigation or a previous
review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate
published in the final determination or final results for which the
manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or
the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise
in the final results of the most recent review, or the LTFV
investigation; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is
a firm covered in this or any previous reviews, the cash deposit rate
will be 3.85 percent, the ``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV
investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain
in effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
Interested parties may request disclosure within five days of the
date of publication of this notice, and may request a hearing within
ten days of the date of publication. Any hearing, if requested, will be
held as early as convenient for the parties but not later than 44 days
after the date of publication or the first work day thereafter. Case
briefs or other written comments from interested parties may be
submitted not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this
notice. Rebuttal briefs and rebuttal comments, limited to issues in the
case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after the date of
publication of this notice. The Department will publish the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments not later than
120 days after the date of publication of this notice.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and
this notice are in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19
U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: March 2, 1998.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-5991 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
